Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Host Response and Inflammation

Antibody-Mediated Elimination of the Obligate Intracellular Bacterial Pathogen Ehrlichia chaffeensisduring Active Infection

Gary M. Winslow, Eric Yager, Konstantin Shilo, Erin Volk, Andrew Reilly, Frederick K. Chu
Gary M. Winslow
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-2002, and
Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, University at Albany, Albany, New York 12201-0509
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Yager
Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, University at Albany, Albany, New York 12201-0509
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Konstantin Shilo
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-2002, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Volk
Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, University at Albany, Albany, New York 12201-0509
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Reilly
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-2002, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frederick K. Chu
Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-2002, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.4.2187-2195.2000
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Administration of immune serum protected mice from ehrlichia infection. (a) Transient bacterial elimination in susceptible SCID mice. C57BL/6 scid mice were infected intraperitoneally with 106 to 2 × 106E. chaffeensis-infected DH82 cells (day 0), followed by subcutaneous injection of 0.1 ml of PBS, normal C57BL/6 serum, or immune serum on day 0 or of immune serum on day 3 postinfection, as indicated. Liver tissue was harvested on the indicated days postinfection and was analyzed for the presence of E. chaffeensis by QPCR forE. chaffeensis 16S rDNA, as described in Materials and Methods. Immune serum was obtained from C57BL/6 mice that had been inoculated with E. chaffeensis-infected DH82 cells. Similar observations of the immune serum protection were made in at least three independent experiments using a semiquantitative PCR assay (Table 1). The lower bacterial titers observed on day 17 postinfection, compared to those on days 10 and 24, were not observed in other experiments (see also Fig. 4b) and most likely represent experimental variability. In all cases, the immune serum group was significantly different from controls. ∗, bacteria were not detected in the assays. Ec, E. chaffeensis. (b) Bacterial elimination in immunocompetent C57BL/6 mice. The mice were infected as described for panel a, and PBS or immune serum was administered via the peritoneum on day 3 postinfection. Tissues were harvested at the time of serum administration and 1 or 4 days later, and representative mice from each group were analyzed by QPCR. The experiment was performed in triplicate, and semiquantitative PCR analysis, which is more sensitive than QPCR, also failed to detect bacteria in spleen or liver tissue of any of the mice that received immune serum (not shown). Pvalues obtained from the semiquantitative analyses were 0.09 and 0.001 for mice analyzed on day 4 and day 7, respectively. n.d., not determined.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Bacterial clearance was E. chaffeensisspecific and was mediated by antibodies. (a) C57BL/6 scidmice were infected by transfer of E. chaffeensis-infected splenocytes obtained from a SCID mouse 17 days postinfection. Immune serum was obtained from C57BL/6 mice that had been inoculated withE. chaffeensis-infected DH82 cells and was administered at the time of bacterial infection. Bacterial loads were determined by QPCR. ∗, bacteria were not detected in the infected mice. Each histogram bar represents a single mouse. Ec, E. chaffeensis. (b) Mice were infected as described for Fig. 1 and were administered on day 10 postinfection normal mouse serum or serum obtained from C57BL/6 mice that had been inoculated with either uninfected DH82 cells (immune serum-uninfected) or with E. chaffeensis-infected DH82 cells (immune serum-infected). Liver tissue was harvested on day 14 for QPCR analyses. QPCR analyses of representative individual mice are shown. The observations were confirmed in a separate experiment (not shown) where 16 mice (in three groups) were analyzed over a period of 24 days. The semiquantitative data from both experiments where serum was administered on day 14 postinfection were normalized and combined (a total of four mice for each group), and the means and standard deviations were as follows: normal serum, 5.0 ± 0.82; serum from mice inoculated with uninfected cells, 4.3 ± 1.1; immune serum, 1.8 ± 1.8. (c) C57BL/6 scid mice were infected on day 0 with E. chaffeensis-infected DH82 cells, followed by intraperitoneal administration of 0.1 ml of PBS or C57BL/6 immune serum, 200 μg of ammonium sulfate-fractionated immune serum (SAS), or 100 μg of protein A affinity-purified antibodies 3 days postinfection. The presence of E. chaffeensis antibodies in each of the preparations was confirmed by immunofluorescence assay. Mice were harvested 5 and 10 days postinfection, and liver tissue from representative individual mice was analyzed by QPCR. Semiquantitative analyses of a total of 16 mice from two experiments revealed significant differences between the buffer- and antibody-treated mice (mean ± standard deviation): PBS, 3.8 ± 0.83; immune serum, 1.0 ± 1.2; protein A-purified antibodies, 0.5 ± 0.87; ammonium sulfate-purified antibodies, 1.3 ± 1.3. ∗, bacteria were not detected in the QPCR assays.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    E. chaffeensis antibody responses in C57BL/6 mice. (a) C57BL/6 mice were inoculated with 2 × 106infected DH82 cells, serum was harvested on the indicated days postinfection, and E. chaffeensis antibody titers were determined by immunofluorescence assay using a secondary antibody specific for mouse Ig. Each data point represents the serum titer of one mouse. (b) Western analysis of murine and human E. chaffeensis antisera. Bacterial antigens were obtained from uninfected (u) or E. chaffeensis-infected (i) DH82 cells. The samples were Western blotted and probed with mouse or human antisera, followed by a species-specific horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody and chemiluminescence development. ∗, E. chaffeensis molecules that were detected by both the mouse and human antibodies. Molecular mass standards, in kilodaltons, are at the left of the gel.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Clearance of bacteria during active infection. (a) C57BL/6 scid mice received PBS on day 10 or immune serum on day 10 or day 17 postinfection and were analyzed by QPCR 1 and 2 weeks later. Ec, E. chaffeensis. (b) SCID mice received PBS or serum on day 10 postinfection and were analyzed 1, 3, 7, and 10 days later. (c) SCID mice were administered serum on day 17 postinfection and were analyzed 1 and 3 days later. The control mice shown in panels b and c are identical. (d) Infected SCID mice received 0.1 ml of PBS or dilutions of immune serum on day 3 postinfection and were analyzed 7 or 14 days later. The values in the key to the bars are the reciprocal titers of the immune serum that was administered, as determined by immunofluorescence assay. In all experiments, mice were analyzed only where indicated by the histograms. ∗, bacteria were not detected. The data obtained by semiquantitative analyses of the experiments shown in panels a to c, as well as data from an additional experiment, are shown in Table 2.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Repeated serum administration results in prolonged immunity. Infected C57BL/6 scid mice received PBS or weekly injections of serum beginning 10 days postinfection. Liver tissue was harvested at 2- and 4-day intervals following each serum administration (shaded histograms) or 28 days after infection of a mouse that received no serum (black histogram). The bacterial loads were determined using semiquantitative PCR. The data indicate the integrated optical densities of ethidium bromide-stained PCR products in agarose gels, as determined by densitometry. Semiquantitative PCR was utilized because bacterial loads in the mice that received the antibodies were below the limit of detection using QPCR. Two additional mice that did not receive serum died and were not analyzed. ∗, PCR products were not detectable in agarose gels. Based on the assumption that the 2 SCID mice that did not survive exhibited levels of bacterial infection similar to that of the surviving mouse, a statistical comparison of 10 treated mice that exhibited low bacterial loads with 3 untreated mice indicated aP value of 0.004 by Fisher's exact test (14). In two additional experiments 13 mice that received two or more injections of immune serum all survived longer than 31 days postinfection (not shown).

  • Fig. 6.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Persistent infection in T-cell-deficient mice. T-cell receptor β-chain-deficient (TCRb), TCRβ/TCRδ-chain deficient (TCRb/d), and C57BL/6 scid (SCID) mice were infected withE. chaffeensis, and bacterial colonization was monitored by semiquantitative PCR on the indicated days postinfection. PCR analyses of C57BL/6 scid mice are shown as a basis for comparison. Normalized data from three experiments are shown and represent the averages of semiquantitative PCR analyses of three to four mice from each of the gene-targeted strains. Error bars indicate standard deviations. Data from the analyses of the SCID mice were obtained from a single animal on the indicated days. Semiquantitative PCR was utilized because it was not possible to detect the bacteria in the T-cell-deficient mice by QPCR. The T-cell-deficient mice were maintained on the C57BL/6 genetic background (strains C57BL/6tcrb and C57BL/6 tcrb/tcrd). No sign of disease was noted in any of the T-cell-deficient mice. ∗, PCR products were not detectable in agarose gels.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1.

    Serum-mediated bacterial elimination in SCID micea

    TreatmentAdmin. dayAnalysis day p.i.Infectivity index for expt:
    123
    Buffer03223
    010355
    017550
    024655
    Normal serum03213
    010500
    017534
    02463nd
    Immune serum03000
    010000
    017110
    024626
    Immune serum33ndndnd
    3100nd0
    3171nd0
    3245nd5
    • ↵a Data were derived from semiquantitative PCR analyses of E. chaffeensis 16S rDNA, as described previously (38). The infectivity index was determined by analysis of the PCR products, which were assigned a score from 1 to 6 on the basis of a visual estimation of band intensities. Samples from different experiments were normalized to standardized quantities ofE. chaffeensis DNA obtained from cell culture. The semiquantitative analyses in general underestimated high bacterial loads. P values were determined by combining the control and serum-treated groups from each analysis day and were as follows: 0.012 (day 3), 0.002 (day 10), 0.004 (day 17), 0.5, (day 24). For details, see Materials and Methods. nd, not determined; p.i., postinfection; admin., administration.

  • Table 2.

    Bacterial clearance during established infectiona

    ExptTreatmentTissueAdmin. dayAnalysis day p.i.Infectivity index
    2NoneLiver104
    1NoneLiver105
    1NoneSpleen105
    2NoneLiver114
    2NoneLiver134
    1NoneLiver175
    2NoneLiver175
    1NoneSpleen175
    2NoneLiver185
    2NoneLiver205
    3NoneLiver214
    3NoneLiver214
    3NoneLiver215
    1NoneLiver245
    1NoneSpleen245
    1ISbLiver3100
    1ISSpleen3100
    1ISLiver3171
    1ISSpleen3171
    2ISLiver10115
    2ISLiver10133
    1ISLiver10172
    2ISLiver10172
    1ISSpleen10172
    2ISLiver10201
    1ISLiver10242
    1ISSpleen10242
    2ISLiver17185
    2ISLiver17202
    3ISLiver17210
    3ISLiver17212
    1ISLiver17243
    1ISSpleen17243
    1ISLiver17313
    1ISSpleen17313
    • ↵a Semiquantitative PCR data from three experiments were normalized and sorted as shown. The QPCR data from experiments 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 4a and 4b and c, respectively. Both liver and spleen tissues were analyzed in experiment 1. Comparison of the combined data from the control and serum-treated groups revealed high statistical significance (P = 0.0001). Admin., administration; p.i. postinfection.

    • ↵b IS, immune serum.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Antibody-Mediated Elimination of the Obligate Intracellular Bacterial Pathogen Ehrlichia chaffeensisduring Active Infection
Gary M. Winslow, Eric Yager, Konstantin Shilo, Erin Volk, Andrew Reilly, Frederick K. Chu
Infection and Immunity Apr 2000, 68 (4) 2187-2195; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.4.2187-2195.2000

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Infection and Immunity article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antibody-Mediated Elimination of the Obligate Intracellular Bacterial Pathogen Ehrlichia chaffeensisduring Active Infection
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Antibody-Mediated Elimination of the Obligate Intracellular Bacterial Pathogen Ehrlichia chaffeensisduring Active Infection
Gary M. Winslow, Eric Yager, Konstantin Shilo, Erin Volk, Andrew Reilly, Frederick K. Chu
Infection and Immunity Apr 2000, 68 (4) 2187-2195; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.4.2187-2195.2000
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Notes
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Antibodies, Bacterial
Ehrlichia chaffeensis

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #IAIjournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522